ALJDEC

01F-R0203W-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-03-29

`IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 28, 2002 APPEARANCES: Complainant was represented by Assistant Attorney General, Dawn Walton Lee and Respondents were represented by their attorney, Aaron Kizer. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant filed the instant Citation and Complaint, alleging that Respondents have persons listed on the licenses which also appear on another license which has been previously revoked by final order of the Registrar of Contractors.

2. Evidence of official records of the Registrar of Contractors revealed the following: a. Deanna Susan Smith (“Smith”) appeared as president and treasurer on the Class B-1 license of S G G Enterprise, Inc. (“Enterprise”), license no. 146999. Howard Scott Geyer (“Geyer”) appeared as the qualifying party on the license of Enterprise and he resigned from said position on or about October 18, 2000. The Registrar of Contractors revoked this license on April 10, 2001, pursuant to the Decision and Order entered in Registrar of Contractors’ case no. M00-1573. b. It is important to note that notwithstanding his disassociation from Enterprise on October 18, 2000, Geyer appeared at the hearing in Registrar of Contractors case no. M00-1573 on October 19, 2000 (the day after his resignation was recorded on the official records of the Registrar of Contractors). c. Geyer appears as the owner and qualifying party on the license issued to Geyer Construction (“Construction”) and as the qualifying party on the license issued to E T W Group, Inc. (“E T W”). Smith appears as president and treasurer on the license of E T W.

3. The fact that Smith and Geyer appear on Respondents’ licenses and also on another license which was previously revoked establishes a violation of the applicable charged section of the State’s Contracting laws.

4. By way of mitigation, Respondents established that they have in fact satisfied, albeit belatedly, the condition in Registrar of Contractors’ case no. M00-1573. The Complainant in that case signed a document entitled “Acknowledgment of Payment and Release of All Claims.” In said document, Complainant acknowledged that it had received payment of $3,783.90 (the condition set forth in the Order of the Registrar of Contractors in case no. M00-1573) and also requests that the Registrar lift the revocation of the license of Enterprise.

5. This Tribunal has no evidence to support a finding that the Registrar has or intends to lift the revocation issued against the license of Enterprise. However, it is noted that the one year impediment, preventing Enterprise from re-applying for a license, will be over within a few weeks. Thus, since the underlying cause for the revocation has been satisfied, Enterprise, itself, would be eligible, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32- 1161(C), to re-apply for licensure, within a very short period of time after the date of the instant hearing.

6. Based on all of the facts and circumstances presented herein, it is determined and held that disciplinary sanctions should be imposed against Respondents but that a complete revocation is not warranted, at this time.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. By virtue of having persons on the license that also appear on another license which had been previously revoked by the Registrar of Contractors, Respondents are found to be in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (21).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondents’ Class B- licenses shall be placed on disciplinary probation for two years. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided disciplinary penalty, that Respondents’ contracting rights, whether or not probationary, shall be subject to a condition that Respondents first post an additional surety bond, cash deposit or alternative deposit for a period of twenty-four (24) months, including future renewal periods, in the amount of $3,500.00, such bond or deposit to be in addition to the required surety bond or cash deposit set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1152(D). Cash or alternative additional deposits, if utilized, shall be returned only after the expiration of an additional two year period following the above-provided twenty-four (24) month period and only if no claims are then pending. It is further recommended that during the period of the two year license probation, any complaints filed by commercial property owners or other contractors,, which result in a final adverse ruling by the Registrar against either Respondent, shall cause the Registrar of Contractors to immediately issue a summary suspension against both Respondents’ licenses.

Done this day, March 29, 2002

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2002, to:

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826